From all of them I have chosen FreeBSD because it sucks less then all the others.

My thoughs on these systems:

Linux
- I do not even consider that mess as a solution, maybe Ubuntu to not watch under the hood and scream

NetBSD
+ pkgin 'infrastructure'
+ XEN dom0
+ will have ZFS at some time
+ suspend/resume works better then on FreeBSD
- bad sound architecture (will be fixed in NetBSD 6.0)
- pkgsrc often break and packages are not available for everything
- no Opera for NetBSD (can be thru Linux compatibility)
- no virtualbox
- mature XEN domU

OpenBSD
+ suspend/resume works better then on FreeBSD
- too basic services management (no /etc/rc.d and /usr/local/etc/rc.d)
- no virtualbox
- no Opera
- small amount of packages
- sometimes VERY OLD packages

FreeBSD
+ virtualbox
+ native Opera
+ mature ZFS
+ a lot of packages and working ports infrastructure
- suspend/resume does not work

OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana
+ latest ZFS
+ Zones
+ virtualbox
+ Comstar (iSCSI)
+ nice wireless/wifi setup in console with dladm (better then wpa_supplicant)
- no native Opera
- almost no packages at all even with additional repositories
- very slow and memory hungry
- no as clean/ordered as BSDs (check output of mount without arguments and various bin directories spread across the filesystem)

Mac OSX
+ nice GUI but after using it a while You still find same 'inconsistencies' as in GNOME/KDE
+ virtualbox (and many others)
+ native Opera
+ nice *.app 'format' for applications
- everything that is not an 'official' is pretty hard to setup (wine)
- no real filesystem for serious storage (like ZFS)
- SICK keyboard shortcuts/layout!
- often limited to Apple hardware but You can also setup a hackintosh on PC

... in the end I have settled on FreeBSD, but experience from the systems above was also helpful, nice to know what other OSes offer.

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

I started with FreeBSD (Release 3.2 IIRC). After a couple of years I tried OpenBSD and since then I nearly only use OpenBSD.

I love the simple OpenBSD installer and the easy way to do a PXE install. Doing a FreeBSD PXE install is a nightmare compared with the simple instructions at http://openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#PXE

I still plan to try ZFS on FreeBSD though, but with only 1 GB memory in my fastest machine, that seems to be a no-go.

I installed NetBSD once or twice, but never had or made enough time to be become thoroughly acquainted with it.
Same goes for DragonFlyBSD, although I really would like to play with the Hammer file system.

__________________
You don't need to be a genius to debug a pf.conf firewall ruleset, you just need the guts to run tcpdump

My choice of BSD is generally FreeBSD, chiefly because BSDs more in line with my beliefs and taste than most Linux distributors. It's also going to be the first of, if ever any, a major BSD has a software readily available for it without twisting arms.

However, I am very partial to a couple other systems as well:

* OpenBSD -> Lean, mean, and nice package management. I also like the shell.

* Slackware / Zenwalk -> Simple package management (Zenwalk makes it nicer as well), and I prefer the Slacky style way of managing services. Less overhead than FreeBSD, as simple as the old Unix/BSD style (similar to OpenBSD), and a hell of a lot less WTFs/minute than SysV style.

* Ubuntu -> Because I'm to tired to abuse shit into working all the time, and even if the stupid S.O.B. was brain damaged, it'll probably both work and have a package that works with some version of Ubuntu. The downside is so many packages are basically from Debian!

OpenBSD
+Simple, Stable
+Good base to learn from
-None core security updates are no longer available until the next release
-/+Runs a little slower but in exchange for security (encrypted swap by default)
+Good base to learn from

Slackware
+It just works
+Maintainer releases security updates promptly and for everything on the install disk
-One Man show
+Good base to learn from
+"Learn Slack and you learn unix"
-Documentation, howtos diffusely scattered over the internet

Arch
+Bleeding Edge yet still seems to work
-If you want to see how buggy KMS and the latest ATI driver are run Arch
+Amazing binary package manager

Debian
+Latest Release works amazingly well out of the gate
-Very complex - look at the code for the new grub2 bootloader
-IMHO not a good way to learn the basics, tough to trouble shoot
-You learn the Debian way

FreeBSD
+Seems to run faster than anything else. Consider strongly for a server

OpenBSD
+Simple, Stable
+Good base to learn from-None core security updates are no longer available until the next release
-/+Runs a little slower but in exchange for security (encrypted swap by default)
+Good base to learn from

You meant "non" there, right? that's not entirely true, there are -STABLE ports tree updates occasionally.. there just aren't any packages being built yet I believe.

A lot of systems encrypt swap by default these days, the performance hit isn't usually that noticeable.

Indeed I've been using Unix-like operating systems for quite awhile now, OpenBSD is closer to being the modern day equivalent of that once simplistic operating system.. Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD/Solaris are monstrous beasts by comparison.

I exaggerate of course, but, comparatively there is a lot of pollution going on in those communities.. I recall seeing a recent Linux livecd boot and was amazed at how complex and over-engineered it is, so many dependencies and services.

amazed at how complex and over-engineered it is, so many dependencies and services.

That's my reason for using BSD. I don't particularly care whether it is FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD, though I tend to run OpenBSD because administration is so simple (and easy, given the exceptional documentation). I tend to be of the mentality that secure and slow beats insecure and fast, though honestly the only use that I've found OpenBSD to be very much slower at is extremely high performance PostgreSQL (more lack of time for testing than actual "it's not fast enough")...and FreeBSD fails in that regard for much the same reason (I'm too busy at work to really sit down and test it thoroughly).

I can't stand having to install GTK just to configure my network card via dhcp. To me, that's idiotic and overly "noob-friendly". When it's gone that far, it starts taking away from what CLI junkies consider true and pure "administration".

From all of them I have chosen FreeBSD because it sucks less then all the others.

My thoughs on these systems:

Linux
- I do not even consider that mess as a solution, maybe Ubuntu to not watch under the hood and scream

But half of the FreeBSD userland consist of GNU software. Even worse the development of the userland is all but sized in FreeBSD. On the desktop neither platform has nothing to offer to a typical user. So unless you use ZFS and have no money to pay to Oracle I see no point of running FreeBSD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

NetBSD
+ pkgin 'infrastructure'
+ XEN dom0
+ will have ZFS at some time
+ suspend/resume works better then on FreeBSD
- bad sound architecture (will be fixed in NetBSD 6.0)
- pkgsrc often break and packages are not available for everything
- no Opera for NetBSD (can be thru Linux compatibility)
- no virtualbox
- mature XEN domU

XEN is getting outdated on NetBSD. pkgsrc is a bit overrated.NetBSD looked dead 2-3 years ago no so anymore. They have a bunch of interesting projects but community is tiny. I like the fact that finally they are pursuing their own agenda and could care less what other people think about them (just like OpenBSD). I would love to see Hammer working on NetBSD but even more so CUDA or Open64 compiler. On the desktop front the decision to stick with XFree86 has been devastating. Modular XOrg is still not a part of the base install.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

OpenBSD
+ suspend/resume works better then on FreeBSD
- too basic services management (no /etc/rc.d and /usr/local/etc/rc.d)
- no virtualbox
- no Opera
- small amount of packages
- sometimes VERY OLD packages

You really like virtualization don't you? I am running Opera on OpenBSD what are you talking about Joking aside it would be very nice to have native Opera for OpenBSD. Small amount of packages for OpenBSD is a myth. OpenBSD has for practical purposes more packages than FreeBSD with the major difference. They are rock stable on OpenBSD. What bothers me with OpenBSD is the slow progress with PPC, OpenCVS, and up to the point OpenSMTPd. I would like to see Hammer ported to OpenBSD. DTrace would be very, very nice but knowing Larry I doubt that

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

FreeBSD
+ virtualbox
+ native Opera
+ mature ZFS
+ a lot of packages and working ports infrastructure
- suspend/resume does not work

The least interesting platform for me at the moment. If not for Solaris technologies like ZFS and DTrace it looks like NetBSD three years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana
+ latest ZFS
+ Zones
+ virtualbox
+ Comstar (iSCSI)
+ nice wireless/wifi setup in console with dladm (better then wpa_supplicant)
- no native Opera
- almost no packages at all even with additional repositories
- very slow and memory hungry
- no as clean/ordered as BSDs (check output of mount without arguments and various bin directories spread across the filesystem)

The major problem with OpenSolaris and OpenIndiana is that they are dead

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

Mac OSX
+ nice GUI but after using it a while You still find same 'inconsistencies' as in GNOME/KDE
+ virtualbox (and many others)
+ native Opera
+ nice *.app 'format' for applications
- everything that is not an 'official' is pretty hard to setup (wine)
- no real filesystem for serious storage (like ZFS)
- SICK keyboard shortcuts/layout!
- often limited to Apple hardware but You can also setup a hackintosh on PC

Lack of PF and a decent file system is the biggest problem. It would also be nice to have centralized configuration scripts like /etc/rc.con.local. Apple should pay 10 billion dollars to a guy who invented keyboards on ThinkPad to work for them. I could easily imagine using OS X full time on the desktop.

Not really useful for anything serious (I am talking about desktop) due to the lack of any native scripting languages and utilities (sorry Cygwin just doesn't cut it). It is amazing and very scary at the same time to see how much MS-DOS has outgrow its original intent. People who use MS-DOS on servers and those who encourage them should be jailed.

But half of the FreeBSD userland consist of GNU software. Even worse the development of the userland is all but sized in FreeBSD. On the desktop neither platform has nothing to offer to a typical user.

I do not have a problem with GNU tools, I was mostly thinking about the Linux kernel, devices, /proc, /sys/whatever, HAL/udev, ALSA+PulseShit tandem, a lot more propably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oko

So unless you use ZFS and have no money to pay to Oracle I see no point of running FreeBSD.

I did not understood that part ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oko

XEN is getting outdated on NetBSD. pkgsrc is a bit overrated.NetBSD looked dead 2-3 years ago no so anymore. They have a bunch of interesting projects but community is tiny. I like the fact that finally they are pursuing their own agenda and could care less what other people think about them (just like OpenBSD). I would love to see Hammer working on NetBSD but even more so CUDA or Open64 compiler. On the desktop front the decision to stick with XFree86 has been devastating. Modular XOrg is still not a part of the base install.

They even 'advertise' them as 'hype free os' ... Yes they have their problems, as all OSes, I am waiting for 6.0 now to check how it went.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oko

You really like virtualization don't you?

I really can not live without it, test something, create cluster in virtualbox, test a new sollutions in the safe way (like ZFS root without UFS /boot on GPT/MBR), anything that can come into You mind, closed safely in virtualization sandbox.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oko

I am running Opera on OpenBSD what are you talking about

Linux or FreeBSD compatibility layer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oko

Joking aside it would be very nice to have native Opera for OpenBSD. Small amount of packages for OpenBSD is a myth. OpenBSD has for practical purposes more packages than FreeBSD with the major difference. They are rock stable on OpenBSD. What bothers me with OpenBSD is the slow progress with PPC, OpenCVS, and up to the point OpenSMTPd. I would like to see Hammer ported to OpenBSD. DTrace would be very, very nice but knowing Larry I doubt that

I have heard about OpenSMTPd and I like the idea very much, like DragonflyBSD dropping sendmail and other 'big' stuff that should be in ports or changed to more modern/lean software (like postfix in NetBSD), FreeBSD still stagnates here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oko

The least interesting platform for me at the moment. If not for Solaris technologies like ZFS and DTrace it looks like NetBSD three years ago.

The major problem with OpenSolaris and OpenIndiana is that they are dead

In a way unfortunately yes, time will show if oracle will release source code of soon to arrive Solaris 11 and how long after release, currently OpenIndiana can be a sort of CentOS for Solairs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oko

Lack of PF and a decent file system is the biggest problem. It would also be nice to have centralized configuration scripts like /etc/rc.con.local. Apple should pay 10 billion dollars to a guy who invented keyboards on ThinkPad to work for them. I could easily imagine using OS X full time on the desktop.

Definitely, Dell Latitude and ThinkPad keyboards are my favorites, I actually worked on Macbook Pro for about a year at work, but with Dell PC Keyboard, even thou it was terrible 'keyboard experience', even after a year.

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

There was a discussion on ports.AT.openbsd about the latest release which still looks rough (see time difference in 1.3.0 and 1.3.1). The ports tree was locked for the release but now is unlocked. Update will follow. Do not worry. If your fingers are itching to try latest Fluxbox do diff yourself.

Irix, it just started with Irix in the early 90s, apart from some nasty trips to Siemens Sinix. Tried NetBSD later at home, but it didn't run well on my machine at that time. So Slackware was my "UNIX" at home for a long period of time, until FreeBSD 5.0. Since about three years I'm also using OpenBSD, even for daily work. Sometimes it would be nice to see the efficiency of the OpenBSD crowd in FreeBSD.

From 1994 (I really miss my Quadra AV) until 2005 I even was a so-called Apple-User, in the 90s at home, later professionally. No, I don't like this "UNIX"-mock-up, it's a pain in the backside working through the plethora of layers between the "UNIX" and the desktop. It's of course a fine machine for my sister, just doing their work on the desktop (she likes it).

Actually, Opensolaris runs much faster on my laptop then FreeBSD. Even the old 2008 version is faster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oko

So unless you use ZFS and have no money to pay to Oracle I see no point of running FreeBSD.

The single most important reason for me is a stable and function Opera browser...

I know Opera runs on OpenBSD, but only on bsd.sp, not with bsd.mp. For some reason Xorg is very slow when I run bsd.sp ... (I detailed those problems on these forums some time ago ... This has little to do with OpenBSD by the way and more with Xorg. I have the same problem on FreeBSD. But strangely not on Linux or OpenSolaris).

Another advantage of FreeBSD is a more friendly community in general -- I can send in patches and bugreports without the fear of being scolded at if I make some mistake.

__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.